[General] JW on STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Tue Jul 11 04:04:47 PDT 2017
Wolf,
I have never denied that there is a difference between our perception
and a (possible) reality. What I always have said is that this
assumption does not help us in our attempt to understand the world
around us unless we understand the difference between reality and our
perception functionally, or at least investigate our detectable errors
in a /quantitative /way.
This last discussion about the important question in relativity, whether
there is a frame at absolute rest, can easily be treated if using the
Lorentz Transformation. This L.T. shows us /quantitatively/, in which
way the results of measurements are influenced by relativistic effects
so that this impression of a frame at rest is caused in any frame; and
our perception reacts similar to the measurement tools.
This was content of the discussion between Grahame and me.
And using your example of dilation: this dilation is a physical fact in
the frame at rest; but it is only perception in a frame not at rest by
the effect of relativistic synchronization, where the way of
synchronization is quantitatively given by the Lorentz Transformation.
Albrecht
Am 11.07.2017 um 08:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Graham;
>
> I think you are saying something that I have been trying to make clear
> to Albrecht which derives from my attempt to move physics away from
> the Aristotelian belief that we see reality through the windows of our
> senses and employ the Platonic belief that we see the 'shadows" - in
> modern therms- we see our interpretation of the measurement reports
> from our sensors - in this case our body built in coordinate frame. I
> then translate your statements into more anthropomorphic observer
> inclusive language using larger font than your comments,
>
> observer in a moving frame would be led to believe from observation
> that their frame is static
>
> a consciousness inside a moving body would form his perceptive
> experience believe he is stationary in that body
>
>
> (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely static
> frame
> those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the static
> frame
>
> When a conscious observer "sees" another reference frame it is NOT an
> independent external reality but rather a mental image inside his own
> perceptive experience. Therefore the time dilation and length
> contraction is NOt an objective reality of the static frame
>
>
> they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of their
> OWN motion).
>
> But rather an artifact of producing the perceptive image of the static
> frame in his own mind
>
> .
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 7/9/2017 11:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Grahame,
>>
>> so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also my
>> understanding.
>>
>> Sorry, I missed your book. Can you please give me a reference (if it
>> is in the internet) or the exact title and editor, if it is only
>> available as a hard copy?
>>
>> One question in advance: Does the book also cover GRT? And if this is
>> the case, is it also based on a fixed frame, so that it assumes
>> something like an ether?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>>
>> Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>>> Albrecht,
>>> I'd agree with all that you say here. I'd add just one reminder, of
>>> what we've talked about before.
>>> For the 'unique absolute rest frame' to fully stand up to scrutiny
>>> in the light of experimental findings of SR, it's not only necessary
>>> to show that an observer in a moving frame would be led to believe
>>> from observation that their frame is static - it's also necessary to
>>> show that this moving observer would perceive the SAME degree of (a)
>>> time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely static
>>> frame as would be seen from that static frame in the observer's
>>> frame (those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in
>>> the static frame, they are perceived by the moving observer as a
>>> consequence of their OWN motion).
>>> To show that the moving observer perceives themself as static is
>>> relatively (!!) easy; to show that they perceive an actually-static
>>> frame as subject to relativistic effects takes a little more thought
>>> - but it can be done, and shown to be so. [This is what I have
>>> referred to previously as 'reciprocity'.]
>>> In addition, of course, it needs to be - and CAN be - shown how
>>> EVERY experimental finding that's considered to be evidence for
>>> frame symmetry can be fully explained without any need for, or
>>> reference to, frame symmetry.
>>> No paradoxes - just a little more thought than most physicists
>>> appear to have wished to put into explaining the 'how' of Relativity
>>> (which is what I always thought physics was actually about -
>>> explaining the 'how'?)
>>> All of this is shown in detail in my latest book, published last year.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Grahame
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>>>
>>> Chip,
>>>
>>>
>>> I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to
>>> understand relativity in general and dilation in particular, if
>>> one assumes that there is an absolute frame of rest, and that
>>> the motion with respect to this frame causes (among other
>>> phenomena) dilation. But it is a specific property of relativity
>>> that every observer in any inertial frame can assume that his
>>> frame is the frame at rest. And in his observation the physical
>>> world behaves indeed as if his frame would be the absolute frame
>>> at rest.
>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a
>>> proper use of the Lorentz transformation it can be explained why
>>> it is this way. It is a bit of work to make these calculations,
>>> but it is possible and one may say that this work is a necessity
>>> to understand special relativity.
>>>
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170711/9f8538b4/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list